The Way Forward for the Republican and Democratic Parties

John C Fremont was the first presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Though he lost to James Buchanan in the 1856 election, Republicans would win 14 out of the following 18 Presidential Elections

Although we have had the same 2 dominant political parties in this country since 1856, neither party looks anything like they did 150 years ago. Come to think of it, the Democratic party of 1856 scarcely resembled the Democratic party of Andrew Jackson, elected just 20 years before.

In the 1850's, the issue of slavery would come to define both parties. The Republican Party was a coalition of former Whigs, Conservatives and Free Soil (Anti Slavery) Democrats. Though the new party lost the 1856 election, they did not lose another until 1884 and in total, Republican Presidential candidates won 14 out of the 18 elections from 1860 to 1928. That's not to imply that all of those elections were landslide Republican victories. In many cases, they were quite close actually. For example, the 3 times that Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884, 1888 and 1892 resulted in very small margins of victory each time (Cleveland won in 84 and 92 but lost in 88 despite winning the popular vote).

The 1880 election map looked like many others in the late 19th and early 20th century. Even with "the Solid South", Democrats needed support in the North in order to win

After 1856 the Democratic Party was no longer the party of slavery, but the battle lines were still drawn along the Mason Dixon line. Though a Democrat from the deep South wasn't elected from 1848 until 1976, the South voted for Democratic candidates consistently until 1964. Yet even if Democrats could count on their Southern base, the fact remained that without some support from the North, it would impossible to elect a Democratic President. Woodrow Wilson cracked that code in 1912 and exploiting a divide in the Republican Party and becoming the choice of Progressives. Yet because of disenchantment with Wilson's Idealism in the aftermath of World War I and the looming Great Depression, many voters returned to the Republican Party in 1920, 24 and 28. It took the spectacular failure of Herbert Hoover to bring about a more long-term shift.

Woodrow Wilson struck a chord with Progressives but his idealism eventually was his undoing

FDR won the 1932 election the same way that Wilson had, by appealing to Progressives. But unlike Wilson, Roosevelt (like most great Presidents) was a pragmatist, and that is why he was re-elected 3 times. Modern Conservatives like to chastise the broad government spending of the New Deal, saying that it was World War II rather than the New Deal that really lifted America out of the Great Depression. Whichever way you feel though, it is a fact that Roosevelt was always willing to re-evaluate and get rid of programs that didn't work. He never clung too tightly to his ideals that he wasn't willing to change. If FDR were running for President today, the opposition would surely adopt a strategy of labeling him as a "flip-flopper". Though sound bytes make this easier in today's world, the line between flip-flopper and pragmatic has always been thin.

Just as Republican Presidents had been in power most of the time from 1860 until 1932, Democrats won 7 out of 9 Presidential elections between 1932 and 1968 and with a bigger and more powerful country and a more powerful Federal Government these victories were just as, if not more significant. Republicans had to find a way to turn the tables. They did it by bringing white southern voters into their coalition by adopting religion as a part of the Republican platform. Of course, many will also argue that Republicans also played to Southern racism in subtle ways as well but however they did it, they did it well. In the course of one election cycle, Republicans managed to reverse 136 years of Southern voting patterns. Overnight the South became the crucial voting block for either party to win the Presidency. Even the 3 Democratic Presidents from 1964 to 2008, (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) were all from the South. Richard Nixon was the first to recognize the opportunity at hand. Before Nixon, abortion was not the political issue it is today. In fact, Nixon was himself Pro-Choice until he realized that he could gain a significant percentage of the religious vote by taking a firm Pro-Life stance in his 1968 campaign. Later on, Lee Atwater would refine the political tactics that would define elections until 2008. To this day, Democrats have not figured out an effective strategy against these tactics.

Jimmy Carter along with Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only Democratic Presidents elected between 1964 and 2008. What did they have in common? They were all Southern boys.

In 2008 and 2012 however, it became clear that winning the Southern vote would not be enough to elect a Republican President. Demographic shifts meant that a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Liberal Whites could not be beaten. Now, again, Republicans are left trying to figure out how to divide the Democratic coalition. A couple "easy targets" are Hispanics and gays. Many Hispanic and gay voters already have a lot in common with Republicans, so Republicans don't have to distance themselves from their Xenophobic and Homophobic history too much to chip away at those blocks. In my opinion though, these votes won't make up for the continued demographic shifts unless something more drastic is done.

Rand Paul might just be the savior of the Republican Party

When I checked Facebook this morning, I was amazed to see many of my Republican friends anxiously posted their support for Rand Paul's Filibuster against drone attacks. Certainly, much of the support for Rand Paul may be coming from libertarians that either ally themselves more closely with his stance against taxes or those that simply hate Obama (i.e. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") but Rand Paul may have put his finger on something that could create a serious rift in the Democratic coalition. Since World War II, both parties have increased military spending and increased the American military presence around the world even there are [arguably] no serious threats to our national security. Even as our National Debt has skyrocketed, neither party has wanted to be the one to back down on military spending. Meanwhile, neither party has presented a realistic way out. Republicans talk about cutting entitlement spending but even if we completely dismantle the American social safety net we can't fix our debt problem without looking at the elephant in the room: the $700 billion we spend every year on our military (by the way I wrote about this in my last post). I believe that there are many anti-war Democrats out there that feel strongly enough that we need to cut military spending to vote for a Republican, as long as they aren't too offensive on social issues. Even if you disagree with the Libertarian views of Ron and Rand Paul, you have to respect their straightforward logic. Instead of resorting to political trickery and deception, voter suppression and gerrymandering, they are some of the only ones to actually present a clear vision and way forward for Conservatives that holds up to any serious scrutiny.

The Democratic Party has a choice about whether they want to stand with the 99% or the 1%.

Though demographic shifts are undeniable, Democrats should be careful not to get to comfortable. A major crisis is looming and Democrats can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. You can bet that Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure the latter, even if it means actually contributing to the crisis. Since not much has changed since the financial collapse of 2007/2008, the same problems (e.g. lack of serious government oversight & regulations) that caused the collapse are still in place. Just as neither party has done much to stand up to the military-industrial complex, neither party has done much to stand up to the big business and the super rich. I believe that Democrats have a unique opportunity right now to ally themselves with "The 99%" and distance themselves from the "1%". The Occupy movements as well as the popularity of some recent YouTube videos about wealth inequality demonstrate that these ideas have traction. Democrats may lose a few votes (and certainly a lot of campaign contributions) in the short term but they can afford to right now. If they make a full court press against the small number of people and corporations at the very top that have recorded record profits and wealth while the rest of us have suffered it will pay off in the long term. If and when the next crisis hits, Democrats will be in a position to blame the 1%. I know that this sounds like a childish blame game but but this is the sausage of politics. Though both parties have done a good job representing the interests of the super rich so far, if Democrats continue on this path they will be the ones to take the blame for the next collapse simply because there is a Democrat in the White House when it happens and they could pay the price for the next 20 years.

A Storm is coming...

I do not pretend to know the future, but I think history gives us many clues. Looking at the past, it is too easy for us to believe that everyone failed to see the crises that were about to happen, but this is rarely true. Most often, many people saw the storms brewing but were unable to stop them. The smart one's didn't try to stop the storm, only prepare for it. Others engaged in exercises of futility and tried to stop the inevitable. I don't know which party will do a better job preparing for the upcoming storm but if I had to guess, neither one will bother to look up to the sky until it's right on top of us.